DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 05/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method claims inherently result in the apparatus disclosed in claims 1-4. This is not found persuasive because the method requires additional steps that the apparatus does not require and therefore the method and apparatus are found to be properly restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification features embedded figures that are same as the already separated out figures 1-11. Applicant is advised to delete these figures from the specification and submit an amended specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims feature a header stating “CLAIMS: The invention claimed is:” which should be deleted. This additional header makes the layout unclear and is objected to by the Examiner.
Claim 1 recites “a. An access-hatch panel installed on return-air ductwork, configured to provide removable and replaceable access to an air filter; b. A filter-retention tray, mechanically fastened within the return-air ductwork, configured to securely hold a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter in a stable position during HVAC system operation and allow airflow optimization while maintaining filter integrity; and c. A larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter positioned within the filter-retention tray, wherein said filter reduces static pressure within the return-air ductwork and increases airflow across heat exchangers and evaporative coils, thereby improving heating and cooling system capacity and efficiency” which will be treated as “ an access-hatch panel installed on return-air ductwork, configured to provide removable and replaceable access to an air filter; a filter-retention tray, mechanically fastened within the return-air ductwork, configured to securely hold a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter in a stable position during HVAC system operation and allow airflow optimization while maintaining filter integrity; and a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter positioned within the filter-retention tray, wherein said filter reduces static pressure within the return-air ductwork and increases airflow across heat exchangers and evaporative coils, thereby improving heating and cooling system capacity and efficiency.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the access-hatch panel further comprises: retention devices configured to securely fasten the panel to the ductwork while allowing repeated removal and reinstallation; and a handle ergonomically designed and integrally attached to the access-hatch panel to facilitate manual removal and reattachment” which will be treated as follows “wherein the access-hatch panel further comprises: a. Retention devices configured to securely fasten the panel to the ductwork while allowing repeated removal and reinstallation; and b. A handle ergonomically designed and integrally attached to the access-hatch panel to facilitate manual removal and reattachment.”
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger, wider, and less restrictive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner has not been provided a relative point to understand how the air filter is larger, wider, or less restrictive therefore the Examiner views this terminology as indefinite. Applicant is advised to clarify the language by eliminating the relative terminology while using dependent claims to define the filter in tangible ways supported by the specification to show how this specific filter is different.
Claim 1 recites “return-air ductwork” in line 2 where the Examiner is unclear as to which return-air ductwork is being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “return-air ductwork” will be treated as “a return-air ductwork”.
Claim 1 recites “a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter” in line 7 where the Examiner is unclear if this filter is different than the air filter initially introduced in line 3. The claims appear to be detailing two separate filters even though the specification provides no support for a second filter being used. The Examiner will interpret all instances of an air filter as the same, singular air filter. The Examiner does note that the restricted method discloses a retrofitting process of a filter. The Applicant is advised to amend claim 1 to include the structure used to mount the new filter relative to the original structure provided by an HVAC system.
Claim 1 recites “said filter” in line 8 where the Examiner is unclear as to which filter is being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “said filter” will be treated as “said air filter” and be treated as disclosed above in Section 6, Subsection b.
Claim 2 recites “retention devices” in line 2 where the Examiner is unclear which retention devices are being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “retention devices” will be treated as “a plurality of retention devices”.
Claim 3 recites “the bottom corner” in line 1 where the Examiner is unclear as to which bottom corner is being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “the bottom corner” will be treated as “[[the]] a bottom corner”.
Claim 3 recites “the return-air plenum” in line 1 where the Examiner is unclear as to which return-air plenum is being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “the return-air plenum” will be treated as “[[the]] a return-air plenum”.
Claim 4 recites “said filter” in line 1 and again in line 3 where the Examiner is unclear as to which filter is being referred back to. For examination purposes, the phrase “said filter” will be treated as “said air filter” and be treated as disclosed above in Section 6, Subsection b.
Claim 4 recites “standard operating conditions” where the Examiner is unclear as to what is considered “standard operating conditions”. The Examiner has reviewed the submitted specification and has not found any clarity or bounds for what are standard and non0standard operating conditions. For examination purposes, the claim limitation of “under standard operating conditions” will not be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0025395 (Zhou hereinafter) in view of US 2016/0051920 (Sato hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Zhou teaches an HVAC system (Figures 1 and 7) that discloses an access-hatch panel installed on return-air ductwork (Figure 1, panel 113), configured to provide removable and replaceable access to an air filter (Evident from Figures 1 and 7 with air filter 80); a filter-retention tray, mechanically fastened within the return-air ductwork (Structure 82 in Figure 7 for retaining the filter 80), configured to securely hold a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter in a stable position during HVAC system operation and allow airflow optimization while maintaining filter integrity (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and with the 112(b) rejection interpretations, the retainer 82 will hold the filter 80 as required by the structure to maintain a proper air flow through the duct and filter); and a larger, wider, and less restrictive air filter positioned within the filter-retention tray (Per the 112(b) interpretation above, the air filter 82 is sufficient).
Zhou is silent with respect that said filter reduces static pressure within the return-air ductwork and increases airflow across heat exchangers and evaporative coils, thereby improving heating and cooling system capacity and efficiency.
However, Sato teaches a filter construction for an HVAC system that discloses the size and material of a filter are design choices for a user in order to balance the static pressure drop while still providing ample filtering (¶ 3-4). The resultant combination would allow for the user to utilize a filter that reduces static pressure within the return-air ductwork and increases airflow across heat exchangers and evaporative coils, thereby improving heating and cooling system capacity and efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unspecified filter of Zhou with the teachings of Sato to allow for the minimal pressure drop relative to the required particle filtering.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0025395 (Zhou) in view of US 2016/0051920 (Sato) in view of US 2014/0245710 (McLaurin hereinafter) in view of US 5230723 (Travis hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Zhou’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Zhou and Sato are silent with respect that the access-hatch panel further comprises: a retention devices configured to securely fasten the panel to the ductwork while allowing repeated removal and reinstallation.
However, McLaurin teaches a filter retention system that discloses a plurality of retention devices configured to securely fasten the panel to the ductwork while allowing repeated removal and reinstallation (Figure 1, alignment brackets 2 and clips 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter holding assembly of Zhou with the toolless mounting of McLaurin to ensure that the filter is properly secured while not requiring additional tools for installation or uninstallation.
Zhou is silent with respect to a handle ergonomically designed and integrally attached to the access-hatch panel to facilitate manual removal and reattachment.
However, Travis teaches a filtration unit that discloses a handle ergonomically designed and integrally attached to the access-hatch panel to facilitate manual removal and reattachment (Figure 1 with the unlabeled but clearly shown label on the panel for 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the panel of Zhou with the handle of Travis to allow for easier manipulation of Zhou’s panel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0025395 (Zhou) in view of US 2016/0051920 (Sato) in view of US 2016/0052095 (Simmons hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Zhou’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Zhou and Sato further discloses that the filter-retention tray is positioned at the bottom corner of the return-air plenum (Evident from Figures 1 and 7 of Zhou).
Zhou is silent with respect that the filter-retention tray is constructed of a durable material selected from the group consisting of: aluminum, galvanized steel, and polymer composites.
However, Simmons teaches an air filter retention system that discloses forming the components out of aluminum or polymer composites (¶ 92 with Figure 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of Zhou’s filter-retention tray with the materials taught by Simmons to increase the durability of the filter-retention tray.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0025395 (Zhou) in view of US 2016/0051920 (Sato) in view of US 2022/0065494 (Schempp hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Zhou’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the air filter has a minimum thickness of 2 inches and a surface area sufficient to achieve a static-pressure reduction of at least 50% ± 10% traversing across the filter compared to standard 1-inch filters under standard operating conditions.
However, Schempp teaches the construction of an HVAC return air filter that discloses the use of an air filter ranging in width between 1 and 4 inches (¶ 29). The resultant combination of Zhou, Sato, and Schempp would allow for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Sato’s teachings along with the width taught by Schempp achieve a static-pressure reduction of at least 50% ± 10% traversing across the filter compared to standard 1-inch filters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter sizing of Zhou/Sato with the teachings of Schempp to increase the filter material used on the airflow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762